it's a small, nimble, tough machine attached to a pilot with balls
Honestly There was a time when guys like you said the same things about helicopters being too dangerous to fly Marines in.
Posted on 10/02/2006 8:44:34 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
How about telling us about Harry's ties to the boys at United Technologies.
that's a funny tag line...
If you look at the dates and way the CH-46E crashed you'll see that the V-22 couldn't have survived combat /search and rescue for downed aviators because it hasn't been tested at those parameters successfully. The last attempt was the "software" malfunction" and that was the April 2000 crash in Arizona that took a couple of friends....not Marines I knew personally, but friends.
Unlike you I don't have to guess as to why we lost 44 Ch-46's during the first five years of their service, I know why and strangely enough it does have to do with a "software malfunction" of sorts.
Unlike HH-3s and UH-34s, Ch-46s weren't used a lot as search and rescue aircraft by the Marine Corps, to be sure some were later on but not at first and certainly not during the first five years of their service. During that time the CH-46 was used as a transport and cargo aircraft, but mostly it was used to insert and extract Marines from LZs.
For the most part 46s are very forgiving aircraft with few vices, almost docile if such a term can be applied to a helicopter, the problem with that is that flying into and out of a LZ just really isn't something you want to do with a docile helicopter, you want a hot rod something that will zip in and zip out and stand on it's rear spin and run balls to the wall in a heartbeat as needed.
Having worked on 46s at one time in my Marine Corps Career I know that there are or were special actuators attached to the rotor head flight controls to give a little extra pitch when needed to up the performance of the 46 slightly during certain times while it plodded through the air docilely. One of the first things Marine Crews learned to do to the otherwise docile 46 was to figure out a way to cause these actuators to have a software malfunction and to give that little extra performance when they wanted it to occur. The immediate effect was to turn the normally docile 46 into something like a hot rod when it came to entering and exiting LZs.
The price The Marines paid for this intentional software malfunction was the loss of some 44 CH-46s during the first five years of service because the Airframe that is to say the physical body of the CH-46 wasn't strong enough to be Hot Roded as Marines needed to do to save lives on the battlefield.
Most of those aircraft lost were lost because the rear half of the CH-46, the part with the engines and rear transmission and rotor head separated from the front half at station 410, and each remaining sections failed to maintain flying docilely, all CH-46s had to be reinforced at station 410 to prevent this from reoccurring.
There were other factors as well but Station 410 failures caused most of those losses.
Which brings me to a point I'd like to make about how Marines want to use helicopters and other rotor craft like the MV-22.
For the sake of argument I am going to temporarily make you a Marine commander on the ground, your command has been in a firefight and has suffered a number of casualties. You have several choices before you to send those wounded Marines of yours to a field hospital some 200 miles away.
First you can load them into your amtracs and drive them there in about eight to ten hours.
Or you could load them in hummvees and send them there in maybe six to eight hours
You could get a CH-46 to pick them up and given the CH-46s mandated top speed of around 90 mph (plus or minus an additional five to ten that both the pilot and the co pilot are willing to risk by ignoring their gauges) your men will arrive at that hospital after a short pit stop by the 46 for fuel in three hours. Which really isn't bad considering it is half what a banzai run by a Hummvee would do.
Your last choice is the choice you don't want the Marines to make because you don't trust the Osprey, if you load your wounded on an Osprey they could be at that hospital in a hour or less at full tilt boogie for an Osprey.
Those are your choices, choose wisely and I do believe by the way that the Marine Corps has by continuing to do everything it can to get the Osprey to those that need it the most.
Will the choppers have to come in hot ooops I mean will the Osprey have to come in fast and is there a lot of dust that might obstruct the cockpit causing "brownout" in order for the Osprey to determine it's rate of descent and forward velocity. ( I don't know if they've got the new "laser" measuring device on yet that was supposed to help with Vortex Ring State)
I guess I'd ask my medic to contact the field hospital doc, triage the patients, determine which are priority ones(need help within an hour or die) or just burns, belly wounds, extremity fractures, amputations etc that might be able to take the road out. I wouldn't want to lose any choppers or pilots landing in a hot LZ if a road trip is reasonable.
time is a priority with combat casualties but not if you've got to kill a pilot, crew and chopper to get them out.
My dad rode a Huey that landed on a dike in the middle of a rice paddy and was in the Philippines in 12 hours from getting hit at Chu Li. He stuck his leg back on, provided cover fire till the medic jumped on him and saved his life.
the chopper pilot had bowling balls for testicles cause my dad said he could hear rounds pinging around as they were lifting off. I don't know how he heard sh@t in a chopper but I wasn't going to question him.
My point is that it's a small, nimble, tough machine attached to a pilot with balls that makes a difference whether you live or die on insertion and extraction. I'd like for my brothers and friends to have the best machine. If the Osprey is it... great. If this is just a trough for officers, congressmen, and the Pentagon... I'm p#ssed.
Nothing I say about the Osprey is meant to disparage aviators or the men that have worked and died in it. I think we both want the best for our Corp and the men who serve, fight and die in the service of our country.
it's a small, nimble, tough machine attached to a pilot with balls
Honestly There was a time when guys like you said the same things about helicopters being too dangerous to fly Marines in.
whatever I had in my hands was not of sufficient caliber, magazine capacity or accuracy for me...
whatever artillery was never of sufficient accuracy, quantity and promptness for me...
and beer is never quite as cold and smooth to the taste buds unless I'm sitting in the Lone Star state between the Rio Grande and the Red River.
honestly I just want to meet the big DI in the sky on the field of battle or my bed at home...not flying to or flying out of either one....I'm just funny that way.
Not so. The Army still operates many fixed wing aircraft but are limited to the size of the platform by the Key West Agreement. Down the road, Army Special Forces may very well be operating the Osprey and they are participating in the development of the QTR - Quad Tilt Rotor.
What is the source for your posted quotes? I certainly hope it isn't that LA Slimes hit piece from a few years ago.
The folks at New River, PAX River, Edwards, etc. disagree, vehemently.
So I went straight to the men that have worked on, flown in and maybe in charge of the unit involved someday... after several adult beverages I asked what they thought about the Osprey..... they looked at me, rolled their eyes and laughed. then they made this little comment... "it's a software problem....no, no, wait it's a hardware problem.... no, no, no ...you're right it's a software problem"..all laughing
I seriously doubt all of your "anecdote". Your remarks in this thread have more than a hint of bovine excrement to them.
Keep the Air in Army BY: Lou Hennies, Defense News 12/13/2005 The U.S. Air Force has suddenly turned its roles-and-mission radar on a potential $1 billion Army program. The Army has a compelling justification to replace its aging and limited C-23 Sherpa fleet, which is a mainstay in forward-most resupply of combat operations in Southwest Asia as well as more remote areas in the global war on terrorism. The Air Force has had years to get serious about the light cargo aircraft business since it retired the C-7, but has chosen not to do so. Suddenly, now it is interested, but for all the wrong reasons. The Army’s requirement for fixed-wing, cargo, short takeoff and landing (STOL) aircraft has existed since the late 1950s. Gen. Maxwell Taylor, former Army chief of staff, wrote in “The Uncertain Trumpet” that tactical airlift was an Army mission, claiming the Air Force had neglected this responsibility. That’s a major reason why the CV-2 Caribou entered Army service in 1961. It provided tactical airlift to forward battle areas, bridging the gap between its medium-and heavy-lift helicopter forces and Air Force fixed-wing airlift. Army crews handled rapidly changing combat situations driven by decisions made at much lower authority levels than they would have been in the Air Force. The aircraft quickly went where and when they were needed in response to ground commanders’ immediate needs. That enduring requirement is as valid today as it was 45 years ago. However, in April 1966, in a mutual appeasement decision surrounding rotary and fixed-wing roles and missions, the service chiefs of staff agreed to transfer ownership of the Army’s 133 Caribous to the Air Force, which it redesignated the C-7. The planes were later retired by the Air Force with no comparable replacement. The Army National Guard purchased 44 C-23s to support Guard missions with apparently no encroachment objections on the part of the Air Force. The Army has wisely deployed these aircraft in support of war on terrorism missions. No one anticipated the important daily niche these aircraft would fill in the down-and-dirty part of the war, except of course the Army. Now that the Army has established a legitimate basis for purchasing an off-the-shelf, non-developmental solution to replace the Guard’s C-23 fleet, the Air Force feels threatened and bristles at the possibility. Air Force Resistance Earlier this year, Gen. John Jumper, then Air Force chief of staff, summed up his feelings regarding the Army’s Future Cargo Aircraft (FCA) initiative during a roundtable discussion with reporters by stating, “My thought on that is you don’t need to go out and buy yourself an Air Force — we’ve got one.” Make no mistake about it, no one does heavy and medium strategic and tactical airlift like the Air Force. Its ability to plan and execute strategic lift operations is unsurpassed. But the issue here is getting beans and bullets on that final critical destination to the forward-most shooter on the ground. In a tactical sense, if an Army commander suddenly needs troop, supply or equipment support close to the action, he wants it now and not after extensive reconfiguration of Air Force global mission schedules for the tactical level. So what’s the Army’s Future Cargo Aircraft in layman terms? The Army’s vice chief of staff described it as “bigger than a C-23 and smaller than a C-130.” What the Army wants now is a reliable, larger, faster, higher flying, off-the shelf airframe that can conduct the tactical missions of resupply, medical evacuation, troop movement, air drop and humanitarian aid under the harshest field conditions. Quick Deployment These aircraft will be rightfully assigned to Army National Guard aviation units, and must be capable of supporting the full spectrum of Guard missions. And there’s no need to go through a developmental drill since there are several legitimate candidates that can fill the bill now. One is the Raytheon/EADS North America team, offering the Spanish-built CASA C-295 and CN-235. The U.S. Coast Guard chose the CN-235 to be its future maritime patrol aircraft. It has also been purchased by 30 military and government users in 24 countries. The larger C-295 is currently in use by the air forces of Spain, Jordan and Poland and has been selected by Switzerland, Brazil and the United Arab Emirates. EADS has established a customer and logistics center in Mobile, Ala., to support its Coast Guard requirements. Another option is the C-27J Spartan, offered by the team of L-3 Integrated Systems and the Italian firm of Alenia. Greece received its first delivery of 12 aircraft in August, and the Italian Air Force will start receiving the first of five aircraft by the end of this year. Bulgaria has also ordered two aircraft but has yet to formally sign its contract. With an FCA contract expected in June, hopefully the Army’s timetable will work against any Air Force attempt to derail this critical program in the name of roles-and-missions warfare. It is crunch time, and the Army must move out undeterred on this critical initiative. • Lou Hennies, a retired major general and 41-year Army and Air Force veteran, commanded the U.S. Army Safety Center and was the state of Alabama’s adjutant general. http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=8334
Well I guess you're privy to a whole different set of guys than I am at NR, etc....
I'm just talking to guys that are now with the 5th Fleet Naval Station in Bahrain, an officer at the anti terrorism battalion in Camp Lejune that's going to the National Defense Univ., a JAG from 29 Palms and another CH-53 driver from the east coast that might know a little about the Osprey.
Those guys are 2 Colonels and 2 Lt. Colonels. Some of the NCO's I've talked to crewed for the CH-53 wingnut.
I'm sure that some of them are full of bovine excrement and I might have heard them wrong cause we were talking about family, duty stations, favorite beer, favorite blonds, longest legs, guns, hunting and other crap. However I do seem to recall that those were the words I heard when I mentioned the Osprey and they weren't kidding when they told me it wasn't pilot error and that it was a software problem.
They also mentioned that there have been several "incidents" that never made the papers.
Like I said, if you're calling bullsh#t on me. OK.
I'm not ever going to have to fly on one, in one or with one. I'm just concerned that my kid has an uncommon interest in doing what his dad, grandfather,uncles and cousins have done...join the Marines. We tend to do that, then go to college and the rest of our lives...or go to college and then join the Marines...for the rest of their lives.
I probably want what you want. A vehicle that provides the best delivery for guys to and from the field.
If the Osprey is that vehicle, great. If it's a money trough which is more of a trail for career advancement and post service "consultation" fees... then I'm gonna be a little p#ssed. Especially if it gets my friends killed. We all take that chance from the time you put your feet on the yellow footprints till you go out the gate for the last time. It's just I didn't want to die due to an "accident" or "software" problem.
I know that people die in the service from all kinds of stuff, I've got an acquaintance whose son was killed when a tire from a Blackhawk exploded in Turkey. Safe from terrorist, not a bullet in anger....just a frickin tire blowing up. As I get older, I suspect I'm just more cautious and realize my mortality and that of my son.
Please provide, in detail, the actual hands on experience in the Osprey of these individuals that you have traded sea stories with, including logbook time for those that are rated pilots. Know anyone actually serving with VMX-22, VMMT-204, VMM-263, VMM-266, HX-21 or the 71st SOS? The fact that you posted that crapola from Harry Dunn, which is four years old and wrought with errors, says a lot about your credibility.
Also, I seriously doubt you have much intimate knowledge beyond the fat chewing stage about the behavior of Dick Cheney and one David S. Chu while they were in the Office of SECDEF back in 1989 or the ties the Cheney family had to Sikorsky which played a major role in his push to try and kill the Osprey and have the Corps buy UH-60s.
By the way, who is John Sarno or Tom Carter?
you're right, I'm wrong. The Osprey is going to be great.
Typical response from someone without any facts to back up their rhetoric.
10,000 rivets flying in close formation!"
LOL. A good friend of mine is a CH-47 driver in the Army...calls the Chinook, "The only aircraft in the US inventory capable of an air-to-air collision with itself."
During my time in the Army I seem to recall that at some point during every Chinook flight I was on, the crew chief came back, started tearing panels of the wall and tightening things...after awhile, I assumed it was normal, but I always preferred Blackhawks. I actually had a few flights on UH-1s which were ok, and even one in the plywood box under a CH-54...exciting in a nightmare kind of way.
I hope it's all you think and a bag of chips. I'm just glad I'm not ever going to have to fly in one..... or a chopper ever again...unless I'm medivaced out of a traffic accident.
So like I said before, you're right, I'm wrong. Time will tell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.